You have to fight for the right to be alive

Visions of the Rewilding Renaissance
#1

In my opinion those who do not fight for the right to be alive have no appreciation of living and therefore don’t deserve to be alive.

" In nature there is conflict and survival of the fittest means to strive against conflicting forms of adversity by individual will alone."

Everyday it seems that civilized people hide behind their conventional morals, laws, dictations, and rules as to shield themselves against all forms of conflict where they have no appreciation of life since everything falsely becomes a given to them in comparison.

Thoughts?

#2

" The price for errors and mistakes amongst nature is death."

#3

[quote=“Plains”]Civilized people have become adept in their environment. Currently it is other men who are the lions.

But besides that, I don’t like the idea of rights. I do what I do and what I want, and one of the things I want is for others to do the same.[/quote]

Constructed human rights along with the application of morality are elaborate tools to subjugate and control men.

Most of human suffering comes from moral propositions.

One of the reasons why I like tribal cultures is that survival is always rewarded to the strongest and bravest of the tribe where civilization in comparison survival is meaningless where everyone searches for a state of apathy or shallow comfortable idleness instead.

#4

I don’t think that’s a very accurate portrayal of tribalism. Only in the worst Hobbesian fantasies is survival “rewarded to the strongest and bravest of the tribe.” Tribes are families. They stick together. They care for their sick and elderly. Even as far back as the Neanderthals, you have Shanidar 1, a man who could apparently barely function, but they still took care of him and made sure he survived, because he was family.

#5
They stick together.

Of course they stick together but the way they do it is where all members are taught to rely on their strength, courage and bravery in survival which is exactly the opposite of modern man’s search for apathy and comfortable idleness in comparison.

They care for their sick and elderly. Even as far back as the Neanderthals, you have Shanidar 1, a man who could apparently barely function, but they still took care of him and made sure he survived, because he was family.

Largely because the old and elderly have proven their strength or courage in the past taking care of the newer generation that it is expected culturally to nurture them in their old age when they become helpless physically.

#6

What are you basing these arguments on, TheJoker? They sound pretty unfounded.

#7

i agree with being against morality and law and stuff of course. since being an anarchist and what not. but i really disagree with the strongest survive Darwinist view of life. if one lived in a traditional community one would just be strong or at least fit due to the active lifestyle instead of sitting in front of the TV or computer or in a office all day.

and the community would be extremely important for survival. if one just takes from the community (including the non-human community), then its not sustainable and goes back to the whole problem of civilization. the macho attitude that we need to be the strongest and the toughest is what is killing this planet and what creates hierarchy, which is also the problem.

i understand the need to want to live and that civilization destroys that want. it replaces surviving with materialism and consumerism. but we need to understand the difference between wanting a new way of life with adventure and excitement and trying to be the biggest bad ass is town.

#8

My own studies and viewpoints.

What seems unfounded to you?

#9

[quote=“Lovers Solidarity Front, post:7, topic:358”]i agree with being against morality and law and stuff of course. since being an anarchist and what not. but i really disagree with the strongest survive Darwinist view of life. if one lived in a traditional community one would just be strong or at least fit due to the active lifestyle instead of sitting in front of the TV or computer or in a office all day.

and the community would be extremely important for survival. if one just takes from the community (including the non-human community), then its not sustainable and goes back to the whole problem of civilization. the macho attitude that we need to be the strongest and the toughest is what is killing this planet and what creates hierarchy, which is also the problem.

i understand the need to want to live and that civilization destroys that want. it replaces surviving with materialism and consumerism. but we need to understand the difference between wanting a new way of life with adventure and excitement and trying to be the biggest bad ass is town.[/quote]

i agree with being against morality and law and stuff of course. since being an anarchist and what not. but i really disagree with the strongest survive Darwinist view of life. if one lived in a traditional community one would just be strong or at least fit due to the active lifestyle instead of sitting in front of the TV or computer or in a office all day.

There are different kinds of strength and while I glorify the individual strengths of a human being sustaining themselves alone in independence, at the same time I cannot deny the collective strength of tribes where people stand together too. :wink:

My form of thinking is indeed a evolutional form of Darwinianism but I am not completely impulsive either. :smiley:

the macho attitude that we need to be the strongest and the toughest is what is killing this planet and what creates hierarchy, which is also the problem.

What people need to understand is that conflict exists just as much in nature too. You can’t escape conflict. Conflict is the very fabric of life.

That is all I am trying to say.

#10

[quote=“TheJoker, post:8, topic:358”][quote author=WildeRix link=topic=381.msg3873#msg3873 date=1187638359]
What are you basing these arguments on, TheJoker? They sound pretty unfounded.
[/quote]

My own studies and viewpoints.

What seems unfounded to you?[/quote]

These statements seem unfounded to me:

" In nature there is conflict and survival of the fittest means to strive against conflicting forms of adversity by individual will alone."
" The price for errors and mistakes amongst nature is death."
One of the reasons why I like tribal cultures is that survival is always rewarded to the strongest and bravest of the tribe

  1. You won’t find indigenous people who tackle adversity “by individual will alone.” You might find braves that seek glory by tackling obstacles by themselves, but no one would ever try to “survive” that way.

  2. The price for errors and mistakes amongst nature is only death if you tackle nature alone. If you do it in a community, then the reward for errors and mistakes is collective growth.

  3. Survival is not rewarded to any one in the tribe. It is shared collectively. The strongest and bravest face the things they have a talent for. The meek and quiet face other things. But everybody eats–always–unless they break from the tribe.

#11
The strongest and bravest face the things they have a talent for. The meek and quiet face other things. But everybody eats--always--unless they break from the tribe.

I think meek is a misconstrued word. Most people, and even dictionaries will relate it to being mild, docile, gentle, humble, submissive, and most of all, weak. Kind of like how “civilization” and what not has been misconstrued and changed to meaning of ‘higher’ and ‘lower’. But while we may see these characteristics, or think we see them, in a meek person, I hold that meek simply means teachable.
“If you want to be meek. Humble yourself and allow yourself to be teachable.”

That may seem “weak”, non hard headed defense and stubbornness of ones thoughts, ideas, norms, etc. but the opposite might just mean ignorance.

I would think meekness pervades throughout this forum, and if it didn’t would this forum still be intact? Or even here? Would we not end up bickering over every new idea to us, and defending culturally imposed ideas?

I know I did, oh I had my thoughts and ideas sure, or rather, my feelings, but I know upon delving into other ideas that if I brought in culturally imposed ideas, and blindly defended them, I would never grow.

#12
I hold that meek simply means teachable.

I like that definition.

#13

[quote=“Fenriswolfr, post:11, topic:358”]But while we may see these characteristics, or think we see them, in a meek person, I hold that meek simply means teachable.
“If you want to be meek. Humble yourself and allow yourself to be teachable.”[/quote]

I know that comes from a christian background, but it’s such an incredibly taoist thought…

#14

It does, but isn’t that where most people get the definition from anyhow? Or when you most think of the word meek, you think mainly of it from religion?

#15

It seems that everytime I try to explain myself noone ever seems to understand me…

#16

I have notice that, too, TheJoker. I often see a disconnect between the actual words you type and the intent behind your words. The only way we can know what sits in your brain is by what you type on the page. It also seems that sometimes you express that your words mean the exact opposite of what they say.

I don’t know what to tell you besides this: Take care to think about how the reader will interpret yoru words. If you use terms with ambiguous meanings, or use words that don’t accurately express the meaning in your mind … well, then the reader will likely go down a path you did not expect.

#17

Well, you have to admit, “…the meek shall inherit the earth” has been tossed around more than a little…

#18

aye/

[hr]
Admin note: fixed a missing bracket in the quote markup